Last week’s poll: priorities for dealing with space debris

It should come as no surprise that readers of this magazine trust in their fellow engineers’ ingenuity to solve most problems. We saw this again last week with a clear majority – 53 per cent – of the 336 respondents to our poll choosing accelerating the development of debris-clearing technologies as the priority for dealing with the swarming abundance of man-made debris in orbit that threatens satellites and could worsen if plans to launch constellations of communications satellites to improve broadband data coverage go ahead. The next largest group, 37 per cent, thought safe deorbiting systems on all satellites should be the priority, while six per cent called for a moratorium on satellite constellation launches.

Another four per cent of respondents declined to pick an option, and some commenters noted that they had done this because we did not provide an ‘all of the above’ or ‘some combination of solutions’ option. We do this in all of our polls because it would be the most practical solution in many of the scenarios we present, and therefore the best way to get a meaningful result is to ask which is the best single option. From the small number of respondents declining to pick an option, it appears that the large majority of our readers understand this.

My vote of ‘None of the Above’ was because there isn’t an option for combinations of the three options. there needs to be international agreement to design all satellites for safe deorbiting: this will help us in the future. However, there is still a strong likelihood of new safe deorbiting designs being damaged by debris in existence and adding to the problem; so it is imperative to accelerate development of debris clearing technology. Finally, there may be need for a Moratorium to provide the time for the other technologies to become viable: as always there needs to be an engineering compromise.

Absolutely, and see comments below, there should be an option for “all of these”. Situation becoming desperate, especially for safety of manned satellites or other human presence in orbit. Much of it hardly bigger than dust or sand grains. By all means get rid of the big ones safely and make sure everyone complies in future: the fine stuff resembles a sweeping operation. M Blamey’s solution, if indeed it exists (it should) will only work for the big ones

Sweeping the whole of space from here to the moon would take more than 200 years, because it is so vast, but navigating to each piece of the 18,000 pieces of debris in turn could also be a problem, because it would take too much fuel.

The solution is to have an electric catapult, powered by solar panels. When the debris collection space craft collects something, it cuts it into pieces, and fires them at the Earth or at an escape velocity away from the Earth, so that the reaction(s) manoeuvres the space craft, to intercept he next piece of debris in a small net.

(It would have a small amount of fuel, in case misses the target and needs to re-manoeuvre to collect something. Also it could be refuelled if necessary from Earth.)

Geostationary slots are assigned to countries by the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) and in collision avoidance (tighter orbital boxes are costly in terms of lifetime xenon expenditure). Almost everything else in orbit is at the operator’s discretion, provided the downlink and uplink frequencies do not conflict with other satellite, fixed and mobile services.
Orbits are checked through national space control centres, though, to avoid crossing paths with other satellites and space debris.
Surely, there should be an international organisation who would allocate ALL orbital slots thus bringing some much need organisation to the chaos the currently exists

Exactly as Mike Burrows said above: my vote of ‘None of the Above’ was because there isn’t an option for combinations of the three options; plus some other possible (the problem is so huge and important that it demands a multiple action approach).
The phenomena of a cascade collision causing a catastrophic effect that can render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges infeasible for many generations, was envisioned by Donald Kessler from NASA in 1978, and properly called the “Kessler Syndrome” or Kessler Effect, and is a worrying perspective. There is no simple approach, and some ideas could simply make matters worst. Murphy’s Law should by remembered and respected! Much inaction has already happened. The stupid idea of “constellation launch” should be immediately banned, and the idiot proposing it should be nominated for a new category of the Darwin awards: one where stupid people propose catastrophic ideas. Amclaussen.

The first three are all relevant, and in reality a combination of them is needed. But moratoria and deorbiting of existing satellites does not address the problem. The junk is mainly bits of satellites, rockets, etc that are free floating, and these can only be removed by some form of decluttering and garbage collection.

I’d agree with the posts above, there is no one solution, Safe de orbiting along with clearing existing junk has to be the way to go. I hesitate to suggest more bureaucracy but as Paul says above an overall body for managing orbital space seems a no brainer as well.
Which will happen first, this or clearing the huge amount of plastics floating in the sea? Another engineering conundrum that needs a solution sooner rather than later

It is the same thing that has plagued mankind for millennia – get rich quick and worry about the consequences later. These businessmen/fools who are proposing constellation launches don’t care as long as they make a quick buck.
At least the motor industry is trying to make the manufacturer responsible for the recycling at end of life. It is a pity that the same is not true for plastic containers, junk mail, and space junk.

As has been noted in a number of the comments, there is no one single answer to the problem.
What would also complicate matters is trying to reach a sensible set of measures which would be agreed and followed by so many different countries could just end up as a long-term talking shop.

Somewhere right at the top of every MoD’s pile of scenarios, is surely an analysis of “how do we target X, or Y, or Z’s surveillence satellites as a first act in preparations for WWIII” (*) [If there isn’t there ought to be!] Presumably if its possible to use this extremely accurate technology to pin-point individual items…doing the same to a group would be easy, provided there is technical co-operation. Its the same ‘laws’ -that Engineers and technologists from every nation manipulate: its the differences in the ‘quasi-political’ ones which separate us. For how much longer. Perhaps ‘they’ will only co-operate when their non-cooperation has already caused WWWIII (*) 20cent’s point is entirely valid: but what’s new?

Like many other comments, my vote for ‘none of the above’ is because there isn’t an ‘all of the above’ choice.
The very real possibility of a collision cascade occurring is frightening, as such an event could easily close off space to us for any purpose, commercial or exploratory, for decades to come. I wonder if those proposing constellation launches realise what risks they are proposing to create?

I am old enough to recall the launch of about a billion tiny copper needles by one of the earliest US rockets: this was -wait for it!- to see the effect on long-wave radio traffic and to disturb the Appleton layer (perhaps another?) There was also a launch called ‘operation high water’ where water (which of course froze into ice droplets when released) was similarly projected into space.
I can still see our mathematics lecturer (complete with gown and hood -I kid you not) telling us about these two pieces of space vandalism -and thinking to myself that his dress hardly demonstrated the then PM -Wilson’s- “white-heat-of-technology?

Developing a spaced based fabrication centre which could use the redundant satellites and the debris would create an economic approach to dealing with the problem. Each piece of junk has a huge value if it can be reused as there is zero cost to orbit for the material.